Cost of electricity by source
The cost of electricity (typically cents/kWh, Euro/kWh, Euro or $/MWh) generated by different sources is a calculation of the cost of generating electricity at the point of connection to a load or electricity grid. It includes the initial capital, discount rate, as well as the costs of continuous operation, fuel, and maintenance. This type of calculation assists policy makers, researchers and others to guide discussions and decision making.
Cost factors 
While calculating costs, several internal cost factors have to be considered. (Note the use of "costs," which is not the actual selling price, since this can be affected by a variety of factors such as subsidies and taxes):
- Capital costs (including waste disposal and decommissioning costs for nuclear energy) - tend to be low for fossil fuel power stations; high for wind turbines, solar PV; very high for waste to energy, wave and tidal, solar thermal, and nuclear.
- Fuel costs - high for fossil fuel and biomass sources, low for nuclear, and zero for many renewables.
- Factors such as the costs of waste (and associated issues) and different insurance costs are not included in the following: Works power, own use or parasitic load - that is, the portion of generated power actually used to run the stations pumps and fans has to be allowed for.
To evaluate the total cost of production of electricity, the streams of costs are converted to a net present value using the time value of money. These costs are all brought together using discounted cash flow. The marginal cost of production at very low levels of output should be relatively low. Small amount of wind due to nature would result in very low levels of output. However, the wind turbine is the initial investment of producing wind energy; therefore, once the turbine has been built, not much money will be invested into producing wind energy other than maintenance. Having a very low level of output means the turbines have already been built, but since wind is free, to produce an extra unit of energy solely depends on nature, which in this case, wind is free. Therefore, the marginal cost would be relatively low due to the fact that wind, the energy source is free and the maintenance of the turbines would be relatively low. Wind power normally has a low marginal cost (zero fuel costs) and therefore enters near the bottom of the supply curve. This shifts the supply curve to the right, resulting in a lower power price, depending on the price elasticity of the power demand. In general, the price of power is expected to be lower during periods with high wind than in periods with low wind. As mentioned above, there may be congestions in power transmission, especially during periods with high wind power generation. Thus, if the available transmission capacity cannot cope with the required power export, the supply area is separated from the rest of the power market and constitutes its own pricing area. With an excess supply of power in this area, conventional power plants have to reduce their production, since it is generally not possible to limit the power production of wind. In most cases, this will lead to a lower power price in this sub-market.
Levelized Energy Cost (LEC, also known as Levelised Cost of Energy, abbreviated as LCOE) is the price at which electricity must be generated from a specific source to break even over the lifetime of the project. It is an economic assessment of the cost of the energy-generating system including all the costs over its lifetime: initial investment, operations and maintenance, cost of fuel, cost of capital, and is very useful in calculating the costs of generation from different sources.
It can be defined in a single formula as:
- = Average lifetime levelized electricity generation cost
- = Investment expenditures in the year t
- = Operations and maintenance expenditures in the year t
- = Fuel expenditures in the year t
- = Electricity generation in the year t
- = Discount rate
- = Life of the system
Typically LECs are calculated over 20 to 40 year lifetimes, and are given in the units of currency per kilowatt-hour, for example AUD/kWh or EUR/kWh or per megawatt-hour, for example AUD/MWh (as tabulated below). However, care should be taken in comparing different LCOE studies and the sources of the information as the LCOE for a given energy source is highly dependent on the assumptions, financing terms and technological deployment analyzed. In particular, assumption of Capacity factor has significant impact on the calculation of LCOE. For example, Solar PV may have a Capacity Factor as low as 10% depending on location. Thus, a key requirement for the analysis is a clear statement of the applicability of the analysis based on justified assumptions.
System boundaries 
When comparing LECs for alternative systems, it is very important to define the boundaries of the 'system' and the costs that are included in it. For example, should transmissions lines and distribution systems be included in the cost? Typically only the costs of connecting the generating source into the transmission system is included as a cost of the generator. But in some cases wholesale upgrade of the Grid is needed. Careful thought has to be given to whether or not these costs should be included in the cost of power.
Should R&D, tax, and environmental impact studies be included? Should the costs of impacts on public health and environmental damage be included? Should the costs of government subsidies be included in the calculated LEC?
Discount rate 
Another key issue is the decision about the value of the discount rate . The value that is chosen for can often 'weigh' the decision towards one option or another, so the basis for choosing the discount must clearly be carefully evaluated. See internal rate of return. The appropriate discount rate is not the actual cost of capital, but typically 3.5%.
Marginal cost of electricity 
A more telling economic assessment might be the marginal cost of electricity. This value would serve the purpose of comparing the added cost of increasing electricity generation by one unit from different sources of electricity generation (see Merit Order).
US Department of Energy estimates 
The tables below list the estimated cost of electricity by source for plants entering service in 2017. The tables are from a January 23, 2012 report of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) called "Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012".
- Total System Levelized Cost (the rightmost column) gives the dollar cost per megawatt-hour that must be charged over time in order to pay for the total cost. These calculations reflect an adjustment to account for the high level of carbon dioxide produced by coal plants. From the EIA report:
- "a 3-percentage point increase in the cost of capital is added when evaluating investments in greenhouse gas (GHG) intensive technologies like coal-fired power and coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants without carbon control and sequestration (CCS). While the 3-percentage point adjustment is somewhat arbitrary, in levelized cost terms its impact is similar to that of a $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fee. ... As a result, the levelized capital costs of coal-fired plants without CCS are higher than would otherwise be expected."
No tax credits or incentives are incorporated in the tables. From the EIA report (emphasis added):
- "Levelized cost represents the present value of the total cost of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and duty cycle, converted to equal annual payments and expressed in terms of real dollars to remove the impact of inflation. Levelized cost reflects overnight capital cost, fuel cost, fixed and variable O&M cost, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate for each plant type. The availability of various incentives including state or federal tax credits can also impact the calculation of levelized cost. The values shown in the tables below do not incorporate any such incentives."
|U.S. Average Levelized Cost for Plants Entering Service in 2017
|Advanced Coal with CCS||85||93.3||9.3||36.8||1.2||140.7|
|Natural Gas Fired|
|NG: Conventional Combined Cycle||87||17.5||1.9||48.0||1.2||68.6|
|NG: Advanced Combined Cycle||87||17.9||1.9||44.4||1.2||65.5|
|NG: Advanced CC with CCS||87||34.9||4.0||52.7||1.2||92.8|
|NG: Conventional Combustion Turbine||30||46.0||2.7||79.9||3.6||132.0|
|NG: Advanced Combustion Turbine||30||31.7||2.6||67.5||3.6||105.3|
- 1Non-dispatchable (Hydro is dispatchable within a season, but nondispatchable overall-limited by site and season)
- 2Costs are expressed in terms of net AC power available to the grid for the installed capacity
|Plant Type||Range for Total System Levelized Costs
|Advanced Coal with CCS||129.6||140.7||162.4|
|Natural Gas Fired|
|Conventional Combined Cycle||61.8||68.6||88.1|
|Advanced Combined Cycle||58.9||65.5||83.3|
|Advanced CC with CCS||82.8||92.8||110.9|
|Conventional Combustion Turbine||94.6||132.0||164.1|
|Advanced Combustion Turbine||80.4||105.3||133.0|
- O&M = operation and maintenance.
- CC = combined cycle.
- CCS = carbon capture and sequestration.
- PV = photovoltaics.
- GHG = greenhouse gas.
UK 2010 estimates 
In March 2010, a new report on UK levelised generation costs was published by Parsons Brinckerhoff. It puts a range on each cost due to various uncertainties. Combined cycle gas turbines without CO2 capture are not directly comparable to the other low carbon emission generation technologies in the PB study. The assumptions used in this study are given in the report.
|Technology||Cost range (£/MWh)|
|Natural gas turbines with CO2 capture||60–130|
|Coal with CO2 capture||100–155|
|Natural gas turbine, no CO2 capture||55–110|
Divide the above figures by 10 to obtain the price in pence per kilowatt-hour.
French 2011 estimates 
The International Agency for the Energy and EDF have estimated for 2011 the following costs. For the nuclear power they include the costs due to new safety investments to upgrade the French nuclear plant after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster; the cost for those investments is estimated at 4 €/MWh. Concerning the solar power the estimate at 293 €/MWh is for a large plant capable to produce in the range of 50-100 GWh/year located in a favorable location (such as in Southern Europe). For a small household plant capable to produce typically around 3 MWh/year the cost is according to the location between 400 and 700 €/MWh. Currently solar power is by far the most expensive renewable source to produce electricity, although increasing efficiency and longer lifespan of photovoltaic panels together with reduced production costs could make this source of energy more competitive.
|Natural gas turbines without CO2 capture||61|
Analysis from different sources 
|█ Conventional oil||█ Unconventional oil||█ Biofuels||█ Coal||█ Nuclear||█ Wind|
|Colored vertical lines indicate various historical oil prices. From left to right:|
|— 1990s average||— January 2009||— 1979 peak||— 2008 peak|
A draft report of LECs used by the California Energy Commission is available. From this report, the price per MWh for a municipal energy source is shown here:
Note that the above figures incorporate tax breaks for the various forms of power plants. Subsidies range from 0% (for Coal) to 14% (for nuclear) to over 100% (for solar).
The following table gives a selection of LECs from two major government reports from Australia. Note that these LECs do not include any cost for the greenhouse gas emissions (such as under carbon tax or emissions trading scenarios) associated with the different technologies.
|Nuclear (to COTS plan)||40–70|
|Nuclear (to suit site; typical)||75–105|
|Coal: IGCC + CCS||53–98|
|Coal: supercritical pulverized + CCS||64–106|
|Open-cycle Gas Turbine||101|
|Hot fractured rocks||89|
|Gas: combined cycle||37–54|
|Gas: combined cycle + CCS||53–93|
|Small Hydro power||55|
|Wind power: high capacity factor||63|
In 1997 the Trade Association for Wind Turbines (Wirtschaftsverband Windkraftwerke e.V. –WVW) ordered a study into the costs of electricity production in newly constructed conventional power plants from the Rheinisch-Westfälischen Institute for Economic Research –RWI). The RWI predicted costs of electricity production per kWh for the basic load for the year 2010 as follows:
|Fuel||Cost per kilowatt hour in euro cents.|
|Nuclear Power||10.7 €ct – 12.4 €ct|
|Brown Coal (Lignite)||8.8 €ct – 9.7 €ct|
|Black Coal (Bituminous)||10.4 €ct – 10.7 €ct|
|Natural gas||11.8 €ct – 10.6 €ct.|
The part of a base load represents approx. 64% of the electricity production in total. The costs of electricity production for the mid-load and peak load are considerably higher. There is a mean value for the costs of electricity production for all kinds of conventional electricity production and load profiles in 2010 which is 10.9 €ct to 11.4 €ct per kWh. The RWI calculated this on the assumption that the costs of energy production would depend on the price development of crude oil and that the price of crude oil would be approx. 23 US$ per barrel in 2010. In fact the crude oil price is about 80 US$ in the beginning of 2010. This means that the effective costs of conventional electricity production still need to be higher than estimated by the RWI in the past.
The WVW takes the legislative feed-in-tariff as basis for the costs of electricity production out of renewable energies because renewable power plants are economically feasible under the German law (German Renewable Energy Sources Act-EEG).
The following figures arise for the costs of electricity production in newly constructed power plants in 2010:
|Energy source||Costs of electricity production in euros per megawatt hour|
|Nuclear Energy||107.0 – 124.0|
|Brown Coal||88.0 – 97.0|
|Black Coal||104.0 – 107.0|
|Domestic Gas||106.0 – 118.0|
|Wind Energy Onshore||49.7 – 96.1|
|Wind Energy Offshore||35.0 – 150.0|
|Hydropower||34.7 – 126.7|
|Biomass||77.1 – 115.5|
|Solar Electricity||284.3 – 391.4|
Other estimates 
A 2010 study by the Japanese government (pre-Fukushima disaster), called the Energy White Paper, concluded the cost for kilowatt hour was ¥49 for solar, ¥10 to ¥14 for wind, and ¥5 or ¥6 for nuclear power. Masayoshi Son, an advocate for renewable energy, however, has pointed out that the government estimates for nuclear power did not include the costs for reprocessing the fuel or disaster insurance liability. Son estimated that if these costs were included, the cost of nuclear power was about the same as wind power.
Beyond the power station terminals, or system costs 
The raw costs developed from the above analysis are only part of the picture in planning and costing a large modern power grid. Other considerations are the temporal load profile, i.e. how load varies second to second, minute to minute, hour to hour, month to month. To meet the varying load, generally a mix of plant options is needed, and the overall cost of providing this load is then important. Wind power has poor capacity contribution, so during windless periods, some form of back up must be provided. All other forms of power generation also require back up, though to a lesser extent. To meet peak demand on a system, which only persist for a few hours per year, it is often worth using very cheap to build, but very expensive to operate plant - for example some large grids also use load shedding coupled with diesel generators  at peak or extreme conditions - the very high kWh production cost being justified by not having to build other more expensive capacity and a reduction in the otherwise continuous and inefficient use of spinning reserve (see Operating reserve).
In the case of wind energy, the additional costs in terms of increased back up and grid interconnection to allow for diversity of weather and load may be substantial. This is because wind stops blowing frequently even in large areas at once and for prolonged periods of time. Some wind advocates have argued that in the pan-European case back up costs are quite low, resulting in overall wind energy costs about the same as present day power. However, such claims are generally considered too optimistic, except possibly for some marginal increases that, in particular circumstances, may take advantage of the existing infrastructure.
The cost in the UK of connecting new offshore wind in transmission terms, has been consistently put by Grid/DECC/Ofgem at £15billion by 2020. This £15b cost does not include the cost of any new connections to Europe - interconnectors, or a supergrid, as advocated by some. The £15b cost is the cost of connecting offshore wind farms by cables typically less than 12 km in length, to the UK's nearest suitable onshore connection point. There are total forecast onshore transmission costs of connecting various new UK generators by 2020, as incurred from 2010, of £4.7 billion, by comparison.
When a new plant is being added to a power system or grid, the effects are quite complex - for example, when wind energy is added to a grid, it has a marginal cost associated with production of about £20/MWh (most incurred as lumpy but running-related maintenance - gearbox and bearing failures, for instance, and the cost of associated downtime), and therefore will always offer cheaper power than fossil plant - this will tend to force the marginally most expensive plant off the system. A mid range fossil plant, if added, will only force off those plants that are marginally more expensive. Hence very complex modelling of whose systems is required to determine the likely costs in practice of a range of power generating plant options, or the effect of adding a given plant.
With the development of markets, it is extremely difficult for would-be investors to estimate the likely impacts and cost benefit of an investment in a new plant, hence in free market electricity systems, there tends to be an incipient shortage of capacity, due to the difficulties of investors accurately estimating returns, and the need to second guess what competitors might do.
The Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland commissioned a former Director of Operations of the British National Grid, Colin Gibson, to produce a report on generation levelised costs that for the first time would include some of the transmission costs as well as the generation costs. This was published in December 2011 and is available on the internet :. The institution seeks to encourage debate of the issue, and has taken the unusual step among compilers of such studies of publishing a spreadsheet showing its data available on the internet :
OECD/NEA Estimates for USA 
|Technology||Nuclear||Coal||Gas||Onshore Wind||Offshore Wind||Solar|
|Backup costs (adequacy)||0.00||0.00||0.04||0.04||0.00||0.00||5.61||6.14||2.10||6.85||0.00||10.45|
|Grid reinforcement & extension||0.00||0.00||0.00||0.00||0.00||0.00||2.20||2.20||1.18||1.18||2.77||2.77|
|Total Grid-level System Costs||1.72||1.67||1.07||1.07||0.51||0.51||16.30||19.84||20.51||28.26||14.82||28.27|
Externality and insurance costs of energy sources 
Nuclear power plants built recently, or in the process of being built, have incurred many cost overruns. Those being built now are expected to incur further cost overruns due to design changes after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. However there are also many nuclear reactors being built underbudget and on schedule, with two new Chinese reactors expected to be commissioned at the end of 2013 and autumn 2014 respectively.
Nuclear power has in the past been granted indemnity from the burden of carrying full third party insurance liabilities in accordance with the Paris convention on nuclear third-party liability, the Brussels supplementary convention, and the Vienna convention on civil liability for nuclear damage and in the U.S. the Price-Anderson Act.
The limited insurance that is required does not cover the full cost of a major nuclear accident of the kind that occurred at Chernobyl or Fukushima. An April 2011 report by Versicherungsforen Leipzig, a Leipzig company that specializes in actuarial calculations states that full insurance of German power plants against nuclear disasters would increase the price of nuclear electricity by €0.14/kWh ($0.20/kWh) to €2.36/kWh ($3.40/kWh), if the full potential damage sum of 6 trillion Euro is to be paid as insurance fee over a time span of 100 or 10 years, respectively.
However these insurance costs for worst case scenarios, are not unusual to nuclear power, as hydroelectric power plants are similarly not fully insured against a catastrophic event such as the Banqiao Dam disaster, where 11 million people lost their homes and from 30,000 to 200,000 people died, or large dam failures in general. As private insurers base dam insurance premiums off of worst case scenarios, insurance in this sector, if there is a major disaster, is likewise provided by the state. Furthermore Germany does not operate any Russian Chernobyl type nuclear reactors, making an insurance calculation based off of the worse case scenario in a reactor it does not use, dubious at best. Also of note is that the insurance company did not look at the insurance savings that would be achieved if more modern reactors replaced those of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant vintage, such as the proven Onagawa nuclear plant design, which demonstrated that it can survive 13 meter high tsunamis and safely shut down without incident, despite being the closest nuclear plant to the epicenter of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.
The US Energy Information Administration predicts that coal and gas are set to be continually used to deliver the majority of the world's electricity, this is expected to result in the evacuation of millions of homes in low lying areas, and an annual cost of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of property damage.
Furthermore, with the ongoing process of whole nations being slowly plunged underwater, due to fossil fuel use, massive international climate litigation lawsuits against fossil fuel users are currently beginning in the International Court of Justice.
An EU funded research study known as ExternE, or Externalities of Energy, undertaken over the period of 1995 to 2005 found that the cost of producing electricity from coal or oil would double over its present value, and the cost of electricity production from gas would increase by 30% if external costs such as damage to the environment and to human health, from the particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, chromium VI, river water alkalinity, mercury poisoning and arsenic emissions produced by these sources, were taken into account. It was estimated in the study that these external, downstream, fossil fuel costs amount up to 1%-2% of the EU’s entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and this was before the external cost of global warming from these sources was even included. 
Photovoltaic prices have fallen from $76.67/Watt in 1977 to an estimated $0.74/Watt in 2013, for crystalline silicon solar cells. This is seen as evidence supporting Swanson's law, an observation similar to the famous Moore's Law that states that solar cell prices fall 20% for every doubling of industry capacity.
As of 2011, the price of PV modules per MW has fallen by 60% since the summer of 2008, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates, putting solar power for the first time on a competitive footing with the retail price of electricity in a number of sunny countries; an alternative and consistent price decline figure of 75% from 2007 to 2012 has also been published, though it is unclear whether these figures are specific to the United States or generally global. The levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) from PV is competitive with conventional electricity sources in an expanding list of geographic regions, particularly when the time of generation is included, as electricity is worth more during the day than at night. There has been fierce competition in the supply chain, and further improvements in the levelised cost of energy for solar lie ahead, posing a growing threat to the dominance of fossil fuel generation sources in the next few years. As time progresses, renewable energy technologies generally get cheaper, while fossil fuels generally get more expensive:
The less solar power costs, the more favorably it compares to conventional power, and the more attractive it becomes to utilities and energy users around the globe. Utility-scale solar power can now be delivered in California at prices well below $100/MWh ($0.10/kWh) less than most other peak generators, even those running on low-cost natural gas. Lower solar module costs also stimulate demand from consumer markets where the cost of solar compares very favorably to retail electric rates.
As of 2011, the cost of PV has fallen well below that of nuclear power and is set to fall further. The average retail price of solar cells as monitored by the Solarbuzz group fell from $3.50/watt to $2.43/watt over the course of 2011.
For large-scale installations, prices below $1.00/watt were achieved. A module price of 0.60 Euro/watt (0.78 $/watt) was published for a large scale 5-year deal in April 2012.
In some locations, PV has reached grid parity, which is usually defined as PV production costs at or below retail electricity prices (though often still above the power station prices for coal or gas-fired generation without their distribution and other costs). Photovoltaic power is also generated during a time of day that is close to peak demand (precedes it) in electricity systems with high use of air conditioning. More generally, it is now evident that, given a carbon price of $50/ton, which would raise the price of coal-fired power by 5c/kWh, solar PV will be cost-competitive in most locations. The declining price of PV has been reflected in rapidly growing installations, totaling about 23 GW in 2011. Although some consolidation is likely in 2012, due to support cuts in the large markets of Germany and Italy, strong growth seems likely to continue for the rest of the decade. Already, by one estimate, total investment in renewables for 2011 exceeded investment in carbon-based electricity generation.
In the case of self consumption payback time is calculated based on how much electricity is not brought from the grid. Additionally, using PV solar power to charge DC batteries, as used in Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Electric Vehicles, leads to greater efficiencies. Traditionally, DC generated electricity from solar PV must be converted to AC for buildings, at an average 10% loss during the conversion. An additional efficiency loss occurs in the transition back to DC for battery driven devices and vehicles, and using various interest rates and energy price changes were calculated to find present values that range from $2,057.13 to $8,213.64 (analysis from 2009). 
For example in Germany with electricity prices of 0.25 euro/KWh and Insolation of 900 KWh/KW one KWp will save 225 euro per year and with installation cost of 1700 euro/KWp means that the system will pay back in less than 7 years.
Additional cost factors 
Extraction, emissions, transmission, health 
This calculation does not include wider system costs associated with each type of plant, such as long distance transmission connections to grids, balancing and reserve costs, and does not include externalities such as health damage by coal plants, nor the effect of CO2 emissions on the whole biosphere (climate change, ocean acidification and eutrophication, ocean current shifts), nor decommissioning costs of nuclear plants(although in the USA, the cost of decommissioning is included in the price of electricity, as per the Nuclear Waste Policy Act), is therefore not full cost accounting: These types of items can be explicitly added as necessary depending on the purpose of the calculation. It has little relation to actual price of power, but assists policy makers and others to guide discussions and decision making.
These are not minor factors but very significantly affect all responsible power decisions:
- Comparisons of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions show coal, for instance, to be radically higher in terms of GHGs than any alternative. Accordingly, in the analysis below, carbon captured coal is generally treated as a separate source rather than being averaged in with other coal.
- Other environmental concerns with electricity generation include acid rain, ocean acidification and effect of coal extraction on watersheds.
- Various human health concerns with electricity generation, including asthma and smog, now dominate decisions in developed nations that incur health care costs publicly. A Harvard University Medical School study estimates the US health costs of coal alone at between 300 and 500 billion US dollars annually.
- While cost per kWh of transmission varies drastically with distance, the long complex projects required to clear or even upgrade transmission routes make even attractive new supplies often uncompetitive with conservation measures (see below), because the timing of payoff must take the transmission upgrade into account.
See also 
- Electricity pricing
- Comparisons of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions
- Distributed generation
- Economics of new nuclear power plants
- Demand response
- Intermittent energy source
- National Grid Reserve Service
- Nuclear power in France
- List of thermal power station failures
- Calculating the cost of the UK Transmission network: cost per kWh of transmission
- List of countries by electricity production from renewable sources
- List of U.S. states by electricity production from renewable sources
- Environmental concerns with electricity generation
- Grid parity
Further reading 
- Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies. February 2011. By Doug Koplow. Union of Concerned Scientists.
- Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies. Institute for Energy Research.
- Economic Value of U.S. Fossil Fuel Electricity Health Impacts. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
- The Hidden Costs of Electricity: Comparing the Hidden Costs of Power Generation Fuels. Civil Society Institute.
- E. Lantz, M. Hand, and R. Wiser (May 13–17, 2012) "The Past and Future Cost of Wind Energy," National Renewable Energy Laboratory conference paper no. 6A20-54526, page 4
- A Review of Electricity Unit Cost Estimates Working Paper, December 2006 - Updated May 2007
- "Cost of wind, nuclear and gas powered generation in the UK". Claverton-energy.com. Retrieved 2012-09-04.
- "David Millborrows paper on wind costs". Claverton-energy.com. Retrieved 2012-09-04.
- LCOE definition on NREL website 
- Nuclear Energy Agency/International Energy Agency/Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Projected Costs of Generating Electricity (2005 Update)
- K. Branker, M. J.M. Pathak, J. M. Pearce, “A Review of Solar Photovoltaic Levelized Cost of Electricity”, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 15, pp.4470-4482 (2011). Open access
- A recent review on the subject stating reporting requirements and clearing up misconceptions about inputs : A Review of Solar Photovoltaic Levelized Cost of Electricity, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, pp.4470-4482 (2011)
- The Green Book Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government pp. 26, 97
- Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2011. Released January 23, 2012. Report of the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
- Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2012. June 2012, DOE/EIA-0383(2012).
- Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2011. U.S. Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy.
- Appendix A: Handling of Federal and Selected State Legislation and Regulation in the Annual Energy Outlook. US Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy.
- "Powering the Nation". Parsons Brinckerhoff. 2010. Retrieved 16 February 2012.
- "Mott MacDonald study released by DECC in June 2010" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-09-04.
- Ove Arup & Partners Ltd (October 2011). "Review of the generation costs and deployment potential of renewable electricity technologies in the UK" (PDF). London: Department of Energy and Climate Change. Retrieved 16 February 2012.
- "Comparative Costs of California Central Station Electricity Generation Technologies" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-09-04.
- Graham, P. The heat is on: the future of energy in Australia CSIRO, 2006
- Switkowski, Z. Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review UMPNER taskforce, Australian Government, 2006
- Johnston, Eric, "Son's quest for sun, wind has nuclear interests wary", Japan Times, 12 July 2011, p. 3.
- Bird, Winifred, "Powering Japan's future", Japan Times, 24 July 2011, p. 7.
- Johnston, Eric, "Current nuclear debate to set nation's course for decades", Japan Times, 23 September 2011, p. 1.
- dead link[dead link]
- Claverton Energy Group conference House of Commons, 19 June 2009
- "Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland report" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-09-04.
- "Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland data". Iesisenergy.org. Retrieved 2012-09-04.
- "System effects in low carbon energy systems". OECD, NEA. Retrieved 2013-04-04.
- Nuclear power's real chain reaction: spiraling costs. By Damian Carrington. 22 July 2011. The Guardian.
- Construction schedule on Chinese third-generation nuclear plants races ahead of European models
- Publications: Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage. International Atomic Energy Agency.
- Nuclear Power Expensive, Uninsurable. 3 June 2011. By Paul Gipe. Solar Today magazine.
- Versicherungswissenschaft belegt: AKW sind nicht versicherbar – adäquate Haftpflichtprämien würden Atomstrom unwirtschaftlich machen | BEE – Bundesverband Erneuerbare Energie e.V.. English translation of report summary here.
- Berechnung einer risikoadäquaten Versicherungsprämie zur Deckung der Haftp ichtrisiken, die aus dem Betrieb von Kernkraftwerken resultieren (10 MB). 1 April 2011. Versicherungsforen Leipzig.
- Reports and articles - Energy Fair. Section starting with "Researchers calculate horrendous liability costs for nuclear power (Der Spiegel, 2011-05-11)."
- Why the UK must choose renewables over nuclear: an answer to Monbiot. By Jonathon Porritt. 26 July 2011. The Guardian.
- Monbiot is "Part of the Problem": Jonathan Porritt on the Folly of Nuclear Power. By Sami Grover. 27 July 2011. TreeHugger.
- Availability of Dam Insurance 1999
- Nuclear Power in Germany
- Idiotic Report Claims Nuclear Power Plants are “11 Trillion Dollar Risk”
- International Energy Outlook: Electricity "Although coal-fired generation increases by an annual average of only 1.9 percent, it remains the largest source of electricity generation through 2035. In 2008, coal-fired generation accounted for 40 percent of world electricity supply; in 2035, its share decreases to 37 percent, as renewables, natural gas, and nuclear power all are expected to advance strongly during the projection and displace the need for coal-fired-generation in many parts of the world. World net coal-fired generation grows by 67 percent, from 7.7 trillion kilowatthours in 2008 to 12.9 trillion kilowatthours in 2035."
- The economic impact of global warming
- $150 Billion Dollars worth of Australian coast line threatened by rising sea levels
- Tufts Civil Engineer Predicts Boston’s Rising Sea Levels Could Cause Billions Of Dollars In Damage
- Rising Sea Levels' cost on Boston
- Tufts University slide 28, note projected Bangladesh evacuation
- The Hidden costs of Fossil fuels
- Rising Sea Level
- Five nations under threat from climate change
- Tiny Pacific nation takes on Australia
- See you in court: the rising tide of international climate litigation
- New research reveals the real costs of electricity in Europe
- ExternE-Pol, External costs of current and advanced electricity systems, associated with emissions from the operation of power plants and with the rest of the energy chain, final technical report. See figure 9, 9b and figure 11
- "Sunny Uplands: Alternative energy will no longer be alternative". The Economist. 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-28.
- Ken Wells (October 25, 2012), "Solar Energy Is Ready. The U.S. Isn't", Bloomberg Businessweek, businessweek.com, retrieved November 1, 2012
- Utilities’ Honest Assessment of Solar in the Electricity Supply
- "Renewables Investment Breaks Records". Renewable Energy World. 29 August 2011.
- Renewable energy costs drop in '09 Reuters, November 23, 2009.
- Solar Power 50% Cheaper By Year End – Analysis Reuters, November 24, 2009.
- Arno Harris (31 August 2011). "A Silver Lining in Declining Solar Prices". Renewable Energy World.
- John Quiggin (January 3, 2012). "The End of the Nuclear Renaissance |". National Interest.
- Chinese PV producer Phono Solar to supply German system integrator Sybac Solar with 500 MW of PV modules Solarserver.com, April 30, 2012
- Converting Solar Energy into the PHEV Battery "VerdeL3C.com", May 2009
- Money saved by producing electricity from PV and Years for payback
- "New Harvard Study Examines Cost of Coal". Environment.harvard.edu. Retrieved 2012-09-04.